On 11/30/04 11:23, roger koenker wrote: >At the risk of stirring up a hornet's nest , I'd suggest that >means are dangerous in such applications. A nice paper >on combining ratings is: Gilbert Bassett and Joseph Persky, >Rating Skating, JASA, 1994, 1075-1079.
Here is the abstract, which seems to capture what the article says: "Among judged sports, figure skating uses a unique method of median ranks for determining placement. This system responds positively to increased marks by each judge and follows majority rule when a majority of judges agree on a skater's rank. It is demonstrated that this is the only aggregation system possessing these two properties. Median ranks provide strong safeguards against manipulation by a minority of judges. These positive features do not require the sacrifice of efficiency in controlling measurement error. In a Monte Carlo study, the median rank system consistently outperforms alternatives when judges' marks are significantly skewed toward an upper limit." I think this is irrelevant. We are using ratings, not rankings. (And there was a small error in my original post. The disturbing effect of missing data at the high or low end would be on the slope rather than the intercept or mean.) Jon -- Jonathan Baron, Professor of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania Home page: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~baron ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
